Research Article
Flat Aesthetic Mastectomy Closure with the Angel Wing Technique to Address Lateral Adiposity: Technique and Outcome Analysis
Table 3
Subgroup analysis of the angel wing vs nonangel wing technique and decreased range of motion.
| | Variables | Decreased range of motion | | Cohort | AW | Non-AW | | n = 52
(68.4%) | n = 19
(11%) | n = 33
(15.2%) |
| | BMI | | <25 | 7 (9.2%) | (0%) | 7 (11.7%) | NA | | 25–29.9 | 18 (17.3%) | 6 (18.2%) | 12 (16.9%) | | | >30 | 27 (12.9%) | 13 (10.5%) | 14 (16.3%) | | | Axillary surgery | | None | 1 (10%) | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | NA | | SLNB | 14 (6.2%) | 4 (4.4%) | 10 (7.4%) | | | ALND | 37 (24.0%) | 14 (18.4%) | 23 (29.5%) | | | # of nodes removed | | <10 | 25 (8.5%) | 11 (8.5%) | 14 (8.5%) | | | 10–19 | 24 (31.6%) | 7 (21.2%) | 17 (39.5%) | | | >20 nodes | 3 (15%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (20%) | | | PMRT | | Yes | 32 (23.2%) | 11 (18.3%) | 21 (26.9%) | | | No | 20 (7.9%) | 8 (7.1%) | 12 (8.6%) | | | PMRT + ALND | 29 (26.9%) | 10 (20%) | 19 (32.8%) | | | Stage | | 0 | 3 (5.8%) | (0%) | 3 (10.7%) | NA | | I | 10 (7.4%) | 5 (10%) | 5 (5.8%) | | | II | 15 (15.0%) | 4 (7.5%) | 12 (22.2%) | | | III | 17 (26.6%) | 8 (25%) | 9 (28.1%) | | | IV | 5 (23.8%) | 1 (10%) | 4 (36.4%) | | | N/A | 1 (10%) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | NA |
|
|
